Channel 5, Fridays at 8 30 pm, 11 to 25 January
Can the media do justice to mental health issues? Channel 4's recent series Psychos was strongly condemned by the Royal College of Psychiatrists' Public Education Committee and other interest groups for its inflammatory title and insensitive content. Media coverage of mental health topics is increasing, with particular focus on child and adolescent issues. But what constitutes abnormal behaviour?
At the extreme end of the spectrum, the “Bulger case” has raised debate about what levels of disturbance children are capable of. Milder, but much more common, hyperkinetic disorder (or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and its treatment options are also of concern. With this in mind, I was intrigued to see how this complex subject was tackled by Channel 5's recent documentary series Driving Mum Crazy.
I was struck by the explicitness of the violence shown. For example, in the second programme, a 10 year old boy with hyperkinetic conduct disorder assaulted his sister. Only after this attack had been filmed for a couple of minutes, so the narrator informed us, did the crew stop filming and intervene. Even so, they had been bystanders to an act of physical abuse. It could be argued that the presence of the film crew added to the boy's inclination to carry out the attack.
I was also concerned that the first two children featured were too young to have given informed consent. For example, a 5 year old girl with hyperkinetic disorder was shown being shut in her bedroom after disobedience. The ensuing mayhem within was then filmed by a hidden camera, to which the mother had consented. Did anyone consider the girl's rights? Mightn't she feel disturbed if she sees the programme when she is older? No attempt was made to protect the anonymity of the families.
What were the programme makers of this series trying to achieve? If they were asking the important question of what can cause disturbed behaviour in children they should have explored the issues more fully. Instead, we were given an unbalanced perspective on why these children had presented. For example, two of the families had absentee fathers, and the emotional importance of this was insufficiently explored. The mothers were clearly critical of the input that they had received from specialist child psychiatry, but no attempt was made to clarify these previous assessments. Also, the series was too short, with an odd distribution of cases. If it was setting out to describe different mental health problems in children that could drive a mother “crazy” then other conditions should have been included, such as eating disorders or refusing to attend school. Mental health disturbance in childhood is not just about children being out of their parents' or society's control.
Because it was so poorly balanced, the purpose of the series seems to have been to shock viewers with severe examples of disordered juvenile behaviour—a 21st century equivalent of a visit to Bedlam. We were enticed into watching by the use of the word “crazy” in the title. But, given the short duration of each programme, it was hard to establish whether the disturbed behaviour of the children was the cause of their mothers' mental state or a reaction to it.
Documentary makers have to strike a difficult balance between informing and entertaining. If the information is entertaining then so much the better. That is the art of good production. On the other hand, if a programme does not aim to inform but simply to entertain or, worse, facilitate voyeurism, an injustice is done. This series was unfair to the children, their families, and to those trying to help them. The programme makers failed to give a sense of the complex nature of these disorders. The vulnerability of all of the children involved was exposed in an irresponsible manner.
An opportunity to look at child and adolescent mental health issues has been wasted. Although these programmes did give valuable insight into the pressure that hyperkinetic and conduct disorders impose on a family unit, any parent who has a child with such problems would not learn what help is available from watching the series. Instead, we were left with the inaccurate impression that the NHS is unable to provide a service for these patients. In reality, child and adolescent mental health is an established and rapidly expanding specialty.
Figure.
CHANNEL 5
Was the Channel 5 series simply voyeurism?